AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, C.J. - These writ appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated June 27, 2013, passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge, in a batch of writ petitions.
The writ appeals are barred by limitation. However, on the request of the appellant, who is appearing in-person, we have considered the writ appeals for preliminary hearing.
The appellant, who has lodged a private complaint under eight heads, obtained an order under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Special Judge referred the matter for investigation and certain orders, including the orders of attachment of properties, were passed in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944.
The accused persons filed the writ petitions seeking to quash the initiation of the proceedings.
The Hon''ble Single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, allowed the writ petitions holding, inter alia, that the complaint was clearly barred by the principles of res judicata.
This litigation has a chequered history and the project had been the subject-matter of several litigation''s from 1997.
The first writ petition was Writ Petition No. 29221 of 1997 (H.T. Somashekar Reddy v. Government of Karnataka and another, 2000 (1) Kar. L.J. 224 (DB)). A Division Bench of this Court, on September 21, 1998, dismissed the said writ petition. A special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India, which was dismissed on March 26, 1999.
In the year 2004, another writ petition was filed, being Writ Petition No. 45386 of 2004 (PIL-LA-KIADB), All India Manufacturers Organisation, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka and others, 2005 (3) Kar. L.J. 438 (DB). A large number of respondents were impleaded in the said writ petition. Many of the accused persons in the complaint were, also, impleaded. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on May 3, 2005. The Division Bench, in the said judgment and order, held that the agreement was not vitiated by misrepresentation and that there was any alleged mischief in acquiring the alleged extent of land.
On April 20, 2006, the Apex Court has given finality to all the controversies surrounding the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (''BMICP'' in short).
Another writ petition was filed in 2009, being Writ Petition No. 573 of 2009, challenging the notification permitting collection of toll. The said writ petition was dismissed on February 2, 2009. The special leave petition was, also, dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on October 10, 2011.
In a contempt proceeding, on November 3, 2009, the Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the speedy implementation of the present project, directed that the project should be allowed to be completed as per the Outline Development Plan dated February 12, 2004, issued by the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority (''BMICAPA'' in short).
This Court, on February 11, 2010, in Writ Petition Nos. 13813 to 13817 of 2009 (LA-KIADB), K. Karehanumaiah and others v. Government of Karnataka, Industries and Commerce Department, Bangalore and others, 2010 (5) Kar. L.J. 107, inter alia, held that the present project was to be implemented without reduction of land and as per the Outline Development Plan. The writ appeals preferred against this order were dismissed on October 6, 2010. The Supreme Court of India affirmed the said judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1215 of 2011 (M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka and others, 2012 (1) Kar. L.J. 529 (SC) : AIR 2011 SC 1113 : (2011) 3 SCC 408 : 2011 AIR SCW 965 : 2011 (271) ELT 481 (SC)), by its judgment and order dated February 2, 2011.
In Civil Petition No. 96 of 2007, the Supreme Court of India, on July 21, 2011, directed that no land pertaining to BMICP should be de-notified.
The Hon''ble Single Judge, in our view, rightly held that the complaint was nothing, but a mere rehash of the very controversies and issues sought to be raised from time to time by various parties.
We are of the opinion that the Hon''ble Single Judge was justified in taking note of the voluminous materials and to come to a conclusion that repeated challenges were made as to the legality and validity of the framework agreement. There were challenges on the basis of alleged mala fides, fraud and breach of trust in the matter of acquisition of the land for the project. There were allegations against the State Government and its officials and the private parties.
The Hon''ble Single Judge, however, recorded that in the complaint there was no reference to any of the matters, referred to here in above. It was not stated that the issues were agitated before the Courts, including the Supreme Court of India, over the years.
We feel that the Hon''ble Single Judge was right in holding that the earlier decisions of this Court and the Apex Court have concluded the issues, and the issues raised in the complaint are barred by the principles of res judicata.
Mr. Abraham T.J., the appellant in-person handed over to us a bunch of decisions concerning the principles of quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Court.
It is settled law that the criminal proceeding should not be quashed easily, but, when it amounts to abuse of the process of law, the Court must raise to the occasion and quash them to avoid further harassment of the accused.
As we do not find any merit in the writ appeals, we are dismissing the applications for condonation of delay. Consequently, the writ appeals are, also, dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of these writ appeals, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are, also, dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.